Criminal Law – Bribery – Demand and Acceptance – Importance of Corroboration – Appeal against acquittal of the accused for allegedly demanding and accepting a bribe – Held: Evidence of demand and acceptance must be proved beyond reasonable doubt; discrepancies in the prosecution's case, such as failure to corroborate the complainant’s version and procedural lapses in conducting the trap, render the case weak – Acquittal upheld [Paras 29, 31, 33].

Evidence Law – Deficiencies in Pre-Trap and Post-Trap Panchanamas – Evidence revealed discrepancies in the pre-trap and post-trap panchanamas, particularly regarding the amount recovered – Such inconsistencies cast serious doubt on the reliability of the prosecution’s evidence – Held: Benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused [Paras 32, 34].

Sanction for Prosecution – Application of Mind – Defense challenged the validity of the sanction order on grounds of non-application of mind by the sanctioning authority – Held: While the sanctioning authority's application of mind must be evident, the lapses in evidence on demand and acceptance were more critical to the case's failure [Paras 19, 25].

Defense Evidence – Rebutting Prosecution’s Case – Defense presented evidence of the accused being on sanctioned leave during the alleged incidents and produced logbook entries disproving the presence of the accused at the scene – Such evidence undermined the prosecution’s allegations – Held: Defense successfully rebutted charges [Paras 30, 33].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of the respondent upheld – Prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 35–37].
 

Criminal Law – Bail Application – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act – Applicant accused under multiple provisions, including Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 363, 366A, 376(2)(N) IPC, Sections 5(L)/6 of the POCSO Act, and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act – Allegations include harassment of wife for dowry and engaging in illicit relations with minor sister-in-law (aged 17 years) – Application for bail rejected citing gravity of offense and societal implications [Paras 2-9].

Minor Victim – Consent Irrelevant – Court emphasized that the victim’s age (17 years) renders her consent immaterial – Applicant allegedly enticed the minor twice, showing persistent behavior – Prosecution's reliance on Section 29 of POCSO Act highlighted presumption against accused unless proven otherwise [Paras 6-7].

Societal and Familial Disruption – Court condemned applicant’s actions as a severe breach of marital trust and familial integrity – Acts caused emotional harm to the wife, strained relationships within the family, and disrupted societal harmony – Behavior unequivocally condemned by law and societal norms [Para 7].

Criminal History – Applicant previously involved in a similar case (Case Crime No. 37/2023 under Sections 363, 366A IPC) – Repeated actions weighed against granting bail – Conduct deemed as undermining legal and moral responsibilities [Paras 4-8].

Decision: Bail application rejected – Court found no grounds to release applicant considering severity of allegations, criminal history, and societal impact – Observations limited to bail and not to influence trial proceedings [Paras 8-10].

Criminal Law – Discharge Application – Admissibility of Confessional Statements – Applicant’s name appeared solely in the voluntary confessions of co-accused recorded during recovery proceedings – Held: Confessional statements of co-accused are inadmissible under Section 30 of the Evidence Act in the absence of corroborative evidence – Prosecution failed to provide independent evidence linking the applicant to the crime – Rejection of discharge application quashed [Paras 11–14, 22–23].

Evidence Law – Confessions Before Police – Applicability of Sections 26 and 30 of the Evidence Act – Confessions made to police, even if voluntary, are inadmissible under Section 26 unless corroborated – Statements of co-accused cannot solely justify framing charges – Prosecution’s reliance on uncorroborated confessions was misplaced [Paras 13–14, 21–22].

Doctrine of Caution – Testimony of Co-Accused – Confessional statements of co-accused carry limited evidentiary value and must be corroborated by substantive evidence – Courts must be cautious in using such evidence to implicate others – Absence of corroboration warranted interference [Paras 11, 22].

Decision: Revision allowed – Impugned order of Sessions Court rejecting the discharge application set aside – Applicant discharged from Crime No. 26 of 1993 – Revision disposed of [Paras 23–24].
 

Partition Suit – Exclusive Ownership Claims – Contribution to Construction – Equal Shares Upheld – The appellants claimed exclusive ownership of the first and second floors of the suit property, alleging sole funding for their construction – Held: No documentary evidence substantiating exclusive ownership produced – Contributions by a co-sharer do not confer exclusive title unless proven by consent or separate agreement – Preliminary decree declaring equal shares affirmed [Paras 15-19].

Joint Property – Sanctioned Plan as Evidence – Co-sharers Entitled Jointly – Both parties consented to the G+2 sanctioned plan; additional constructions deemed part of the joint property – Adjustments for contributions can be made during the final decree stage [Paras 16-18].

Final Decree Stage – Contributions and Possession Claims – Adjustments Allowed – Parties permitted to establish claims for contributions and possession for owelty money allocation during final decree proceedings [Para 18].

Decision: Appeal dismissed; judgment and preliminary decree of the trial court affirmed – Trial court directed to expedite disposal of the case at the final decree stage with cooperation from all parties [Paras 20-23].
 

Property Law – Permanent Injunction – Suit for Injunction – Plaintiffs sought permanent injunction against the Government and its agents from interfering with their possession of properties – Defendants claimed the properties were Government-assigned lands resumed for redistribution – Plaintiffs proved possession through registered sale deeds and historical ownership – No evidence provided by defendants to establish assignment conditions or resumption process – Held: Plaintiffs entitled to permanent injunction as their possession was not legally challenged or displaced by defendants [Paras 6–21].

Government-Assisted Lands – Resumption and Eviction Procedure – Defendants argued that properties were assigned lands subject to non-alienation conditions – Rule 3 notice under A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 not issued to plaintiffs or their predecessors – No assignment orders or documents filed to prove claims of resumption – Defendants failed to follow mandatory procedure for eviction or resumption of possession – Held: Resumption invalid due to non-compliance with statutory requirements [Paras 20–21].

Burden of Proof – Assignment Conditions – Defendants claimed plaintiffs’ lands were assigned lands subject to restrictions on alienation – No proof of such conditions or evidence of assignments produced – Witness (D.W.1) admitted lack of knowledge about assignment register and assignment orders – Burden of proof not discharged by defendants – Held: Plaintiffs’ possession legally supported by evidence, while defendants’ claims were unsubstantiated [Paras 18–21].

Possession and Enjoyment – Evidence of Ownership – Plaintiffs provided registered sale deeds and supporting link documents to prove uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of properties – Advocate Commissioner’s report corroborated possession of properties by plaintiffs – No credible evidence from defendants to refute plaintiffs’ possession – Held: Plaintiffs entitled to protection of possession through injunction [Paras 17–20].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Judgments and decrees of trial court and first appellate court affirmed – No costs awarded [Paras 21-22].

Accident Claim - Motor Vehicle Act – Limitation Period – Applicability of Section 166(3) – Delay Condoned – The petitioner insurance company challenged the Tribunal's order condoning a delay of 9 days in filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act. It was argued that Section 166(3), as amended in 2019, imposed a strict limitation period of six months for filing claims, and the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, were inapplicable. The Court rejected this argument, holding that the Limitation Act applied to relax the statutory limitation period in the absence of explicit exclusion under Section 166(3). – Held: Delay condonation was valid, and the petition was dismissed [Paras 7, 35-37].

Police and Insurance Company’s Duty – Procedural Obligations under Sections 149 and 159 – Compliance Mandated – The Court emphasized the statutory obligations of police officers and insurance companies to promptly file accident information reports (AIR), interim accident reports (IAR), and detailed accident reports (DAR) under Sections 149 and 159 of the Motor Vehicle Act. These reports are intended to facilitate swift adjudication of claims and reduce procedural delays, underscoring the benevolent nature of the legislation. – Held: Procedural compliance by police and insurers is mandatory [Paras 14, 15, 30-33].

Relief under Section 166(4) – Claims Tribunals’ Role – Automatic Treatment of Reports as Claim Applications – The Court clarified that under Section 166(4), any report forwarded under Section 159 must be treated as a claim application, thereby safeguarding victims’ rights irrespective of the limitation under Section 166(3). – Held: Claims Tribunal must process reports as applications for compensation [Paras 19, 34].

Children and Legal Disability – Sections 6 and 7 of the Limitation Act – Extended Timelines – In cases involving minor claimants, as in the present matter, the Court held that Sections 6 and 7 of the Limitation Act extended the timeline for filing claims until the disability ceased, further reinforcing the victim-centric approach of the Motor Vehicle Act. – Held: Minors’ legal disability allowed extension of time for filing claims [Para 38].

Legislative Intent – Harmonization of Amended Provisions – Liberal Interpretation Favoured – Observing that the Motor Vehicle Act is a benevolent statute, the Court harmonized the amended provisions, highlighting the legislature's intent to ensure expeditious compensation while balancing procedural fairness. Strict interpretation of limitation periods would undermine this objective. – Held: Liberal interpretation of the Act upheld the right to compensation [Paras 33, 34].

Criminal Law – Cyber Harassment – Conviction – Petitioner, a former MLA, challenged his conviction under Sections 504, 509 IPC, and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, for forwarding a derogatory social media message against women journalists – Trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner based on evidence, including screenshots of the forwarded message (Ex.P-3) and testimonies of P.Ws.1 to 3 – Prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the forwarded message harmed the reputation of the complainant (P.W.2) – Held: Apology by the petitioner insufficient to negate the criminal intent or consequences of the act [Paras 3, 15-19, 23-24].

Evidence Law – Admissibility of Electronic Evidence – Section 65-B Certificate – Petitioner argued that the prosecution failed to produce a Section 65-B certificate for the screenshot of the forwarded message – Court held that Ex.P-3, coupled with testimonies of prosecution witnesses, sufficiently proved the case – Certificate under Section 65-B not mandatory in the circumstances, as the petitioner admitted forwarding the message and tendering an apology – No legal infirmity or perversity in appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court [Paras 5, 9, 15-17, 21].

Revision Jurisdiction – Limited Scope – Court emphasized the limited scope of revision under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. – Held: Revisional Court need not re-appreciate evidence unless there is a legal bar or perversity in appreciation of evidence – No grounds to interfere with the Trial Court's findings and conviction [Paras 13, 23].

Decision – Criminal Revision Case dismissed – Conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court confirmed – Trial Court directed to secure custody of the petitioner to serve the remaining sentence – Execution of sentence stayed for 90 days to allow for filing of Special Leave Petition [Paras 24].
 

Criminal Law – Sexual Offences Against a Minor – Conviction and Sentence – Appellant convicted under Sections 363, 366 IPC, and Section 6 of the POCSO Act read with Section 376 IPC – Trial Court sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for the POCSO offence, 3 years under Section 363 IPC, and 5 years under Section 366 IPC, all to run concurrently – Conviction challenged on grounds of insufficient proof of minority and implied consent of the victim – High Court upheld the Trial Court's findings, affirming the conviction and sentence – Held: Prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the minority of the victim and the culpability of the accused – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1, 8, 38-41].

Witness Testimony – Victim’s Account and Corroboration – Victim (PW-1) testified that the accused took her under the pretext of a medical visit, sexually assaulted her, and subsequently took her to Maharashtra, where she stayed with him for 20 days – Testimony corroborated by her earlier statement under Section 164 CrPC and by her father (PW-2) and sister (PW-8), who confirmed her recovery with the accused in Maharashtra – Rinku (PW-3) corroborated their identification in Maharashtra – Held: Victim’s testimony was credible and sufficiently corroborated [Paras 22-24, 37].

Age of the Victim – Proof of Minority – Prosecution relied on the victim's school admission record (Ext. PW-14/E), which showed her date of birth as 17.03.2002, proving she was 14 years old at the time of the incident – Record prepared ante litem motam and deemed credible – High Court relied on Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007, and Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, holding that the school record was conclusive in the absence of matriculation or panchayat-issued birth certificates – Defense argument of record discrepancies rejected as unsubstantiated [Paras 13-21, 38].

Forensic Evidence – DNA Analysis – Forensic report (Ext. PW-16/E and PW-16/J) confirmed that semen stains on the recovered bed sheet matched the DNA profile of the accused – Corroborated the victim’s claim of sexual assault – Held: DNA evidence was reliable and provided strong corroboration to the victim’s testimony [Paras 35-36].

Victim’s Conduct – Irrelevance of Consent – Defense argued that the victim’s lack of resistance or hue and cry indicated consent – High Court rejected this argument, holding that the victim’s minority rendered consent irrelevant under the POCSO Act – Victim’s behavior during abduction and subsequent events did not absolve the accused of liability [Paras 37-38].

Sentence – Quantum of Punishment – Accused sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 3 years under Section 363 IPC, and 5 years under Section 366 IPC – Minimum prescribed sentence imposed under POCSO Act – Sentences under IPC provisions deemed appropriate given the age of the victim and seriousness of the offence – Held: No interference with the sentence warranted [Paras 39-40].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and sentence upheld – High Court found no merit in the appeal – Trial Court’s judgment affirmed [Paras 41-42].

Civil Law – Injunction – Dispute Over Vahivat Road – Plaintiffs seeking injunction to prevent Defendants from using or obtaining NA permission for vahivat road allegedly curated for Plaintiffs' exclusive use – Trial Court granted injunction in favor of Plaintiffs – Appellate Court reversed Trial Court order – Held: Plaintiffs' claim based on prescription not substantiated with prima facie evidence – Vahivat road recorded as public road in Gram Panchayat records and maintained with public funds – Balance of convenience and irreparable harm favor Defendants as road provides sole access to Gat Nos. 720/1 and 720/2 – Trial Court order overturned [Paras 10-11, 18-23].

Ownership Claim – Prescription and Long Use – Plaintiffs claimed exclusive right over vahivat road citing long use and conversion into private road – No evidence of perfected legal title or ownership presented – Held: Plaintiffs' claim to ownership of road not substantiated – Gram Panchayat records indicate road as public – No prima facie case for exclusive use established [Paras 15-20, 23].

Public vs. Private Road – Evidence of Public Use – Defendants demonstrated vahivat road as public road based on Gram Panchayat records, Tahasildar’s report, and history of maintenance using public funds – Plaintiffs’ assertion of private ownership conflicted with public records – Held: Status of road as public road likely, subject to trial [Paras 18-22].

Balance of Convenience – Road Access to Defendants – Vahivat road is sole access for Defendants' properties – Restriction on Defendants' use of road would render properties landlocked – No alternate access established – Appellate Court rightly balanced equities in Defendants' favor while preserving Plaintiffs’ usage rights until trial [Paras 23-24].

Decision – Writ Petitions Dismissed – Appellate Court orders in MCA Nos. 48 and 50 of 2024 upheld – Status quo maintained for eight weeks to allow Plaintiffs to approach Superior Court – Observations made in judgment to have no bearing on final trial outcome [Paras 25-27].